Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   We all knew Scott Walker's union reform in Wisconsin would be a disaster. And by disaster, we mean "It's saving the taxpayers lots of money and forcing unions to actually try to entice members and be more responsive"   (salon.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, work rule, occupancy, teaching assistant, paraprofessionals, public sector workers, AFSCME  
•       •       •

2014 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2013 at 7:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 07:47:47 AM  
Obvious tag on strike?
 
2013-08-06 07:49:26 AM  
Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?
 
2013-08-06 07:50:08 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-06 07:50:25 AM  

Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?


Yeah, this.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 07:57:04 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Yeah, this.


Making a state great for business (which really means "great for our corporate buddies") while making it unlivable for everyone else is at best a good short term strategy.  The way that Walker implements it makes it a failing short term strategy as well.

Look at us here in Indiana... Mitch Daniels made it look good for his 8 years in office and then leaves just before the house of cards starts to fall.  That's the way a "winning" GOPer does it and it plays well in Peoria.  The rubes here still praise Daniels as all the bad karma he created for the state comes back during another administration.
 
2013-08-06 08:00:40 AM  
Meanwhile, in the liberal paradise of detroit...
 
2013-08-06 08:02:52 AM  
I don't think submitter read the same article I read. It seems worker abuse is at an all-time high. And yes people are protesting and walking out in record numbers as well. Guess what, fast food workers are also protesting across the nation, this has nothing to do with unions though.

Make things shiatty -> people protest.

Wow, making things shiatty was a great idea guys!!!!
 
2013-08-06 08:04:37 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Yeah, this.


Wisconsin was top-shelf before in that before he arrived?
 
2013-08-06 08:06:47 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: PC LOAD LETTER: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Yeah, this.

Wisconsin was top-shelf before in that before he arrived?


Well they were leading the nation in dead deer farkers. So that was nice.
 
2013-08-06 08:11:46 AM  
Too bad he didn't include the police union.  They're in need of a bit of reform.
 
2013-08-06 08:15:59 AM  
Sooooooooo...... State gubmint kills collective bargaining, cuts pay and refuses to negotiate, and as a result, the unions are expected to be "more responsive?" What is that supposed to mean anyway?

Here is how the negotiations between my union and the state went, pre-Act 10:

Union: We would like a cost of living pay increase, please.  We think that's reasonable, given that our members are making the same pay they made 5 years ago, and after all, state sales tax revenues are increasing with inflation.

State: Go fark yourself.  You'll get nothing and like it.  And it's illegal for you to strike.

Post-Act 10:

State: We are to busy fellating the Koch Brothers.
 
2013-08-06 08:16:03 AM  
I did not read that. The fast food workers in Wisconsin are now forming and organizing taking cues from other cities, they have support and guidance from already established unions.

A few organizations failed, and that's good, it's ultimately healthy for the economy, it certainly is better for teachers to weed out the weaker unions.

I'm not sure how tax payers are benefiting though.
 
2013-08-06 08:17:18 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Wisconsin was top-shelf before in that before he arrived?


it was pretty solid, wasn't top of the heap but wasn't bad. Now? it's something like 49th. You know, almost dead last.
 
2013-08-06 08:18:30 AM  
Money was saved. Where did it go?
 
2013-08-06 08:19:18 AM  

d23: PC LOAD LETTER: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Yeah, this.

Making a state great for business (which really means "great for our corporate buddies") while making it unlivable for everyone else is at best a good short term strategy.  The way that Walker implements it makes it a failing short term strategy as well.

Look at us here in Indiana... Mitch Daniels made it look good for his 8 years in office and then leaves just before the house of cards starts to fall.  That's the way a "winning" GOPer does it and it plays well in Peoria.  The rubes here still praise Daniels as all the bad karma he created for the state comes back during another administration.


Republicans always look to screw people in short term periods of 4-8 years. Democrats at least have their eye on the long term prize and screw people over in generational terms.
 
2013-08-06 08:26:56 AM  
Workers should be able to organize, and employers should be able to fire those workers if they deem it necessary.

We're headed to a post jobs society - let's act like it folks.  Institute a GMI and stop worrying about wages etc.
 
2013-08-06 08:26:56 AM  

SlothB77: Meanwhile, in the liberal paradise of detroit...


If you wanna use the N word just do it.
 
2013-08-06 08:28:24 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: PC LOAD LETTER: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Yeah, this.

Wisconsin was top-shelf before in that before he arrived?


bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com
 
2013-08-06 08:28:50 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Too bad he didn't include the police union.  They're in need of a bit of reform.


He's going after them now. He needed them for his initial union screwing, now for round two he's going after the people that helped him screw people in round one.
 
2013-08-06 08:29:16 AM  
Here's one with the source.

fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-06 08:30:33 AM  
JRTFA. Um, did I miss the part where the state saved millions? I did not see that anywhere, does anyone have a citation for this?. I'm not trolling, just curious.
 
2013-08-06 08:30:54 AM  
And this compares how Wisconsin has been doing relative to other states:

liberalbias.com
 
2013-08-06 08:31:26 AM  

MattStafford: We're headed to a post jobs society


Is that a nicer way of saying, "third world?"
 
2013-08-06 08:31:37 AM  
Good thing tax payers are saving so much money, because with Wisconsin's abysmal job growth rate, they sure aren't going to make up any shortfalls with income tax receipts.
 
2013-08-06 08:32:11 AM  

NINDroog: JRTFA. Um, did I miss the part where the state saved millions? I did not see that anywhere, does anyone have a citation for this?. I'm not trolling, just curious.


You're not trolling. Subby is. Greenlighting 101.
 
2013-08-06 08:32:34 AM  

Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?


Care to present a thesis for how a law that only effects public employee unions can cause an overall lack of job creation?
 
2013-08-06 08:33:10 AM  

MattStafford: We're headed to a post jobs society - let's act like it folks.  Institute a GMI and stop worrying about wages etc.


A GMI is a good idea but no guarantee of a healthy society. If we're going to do it we'll need to do it right.

Manna
 
2013-08-06 08:33:24 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Is that a nicer way of saying, "third world?"


MattStafford: Institute a GMI and stop worrying about wages etc


It's almost like you're incapable of reading.
 
2013-08-06 08:38:24 AM  

BMFPitt: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Care to present a thesis for how a law that only effects public employee unions can cause an overall lack of job creation?


Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.
 
2013-08-06 08:43:56 AM  

ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.


This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.
 
2013-08-06 08:47:42 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


What is this I don't even
 
2013-08-06 08:49:32 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.


Yes, because people with no jobs or living paycheck to paycheck in low wage jobs are notorious for having tons of money wrapped up in their retirement accounts.  Of course Wall Street is doing so horribly now, it's no wonder that, given your premise, that the majority of Americans are not doing so well.

Oh, wait...
 
2013-08-06 08:50:21 AM  

CPennypacker: What is this I don't even


You don't think taxing the wealthy (who have large investments in bonds and stocks) would cause the price of those assets to drop?  And that retirement funds are heavily invested in stocks and bonds?
 
2013-08-06 08:50:45 AM  

ltr77: BMFPitt: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Care to present a thesis for how a law that only effects public employee unions can cause an overall lack of job creation?

Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.


Ah, the good old public union trickle down theory.
 
2013-08-06 08:52:59 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


Derp derp I don't understand how investing works derp derp.

You're not helping.
 
2013-08-06 08:54:05 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


Apparently you believe that companies and the wealthy magically make money by simply having money and that this is a sustainable plan.  Ultimately things have to get bought and sold for the economy to keep on going or else there will be no call to invest in companies that make and sell products.  We cannot simply transfer wealth from one thing to another and make money on commissions.  This type of thinking is why the economy sucks right now. Consumer spending drives the economy, and the wealthy people's lifestyles are subsidize by this.  They have been getting a free ride off the backs of the real producers in this country.  Trickle down has been shown time and time again to not work,  however Keynesian economics clearly does.  Sorry that reality doesn't gel with your perceived notions of how the world should work.
 
2013-08-06 08:54:16 AM  

MattStafford: This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever


Buying stocks and bonds isn't "spending."  It's investing.  If you take a look at the record stock market levels we've recently reached it doesn't take a lot to realize the stock market is almost entirely divorced from the poorly performing economy as a whole

If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Or the wealthy find a way to hoover those retirement funds out of your account just like they did the economy at large.

Personally I invested in guillotines.  I expect a big return in the near future.
 
2013-08-06 08:55:59 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: What is this I don't even

You don't think taxing the wealthy (who have large investments in bonds and stocks) would cause the price of those assets to drop?  And that retirement funds are heavily invested in stocks and bonds?


How much are we taxing them? 100%?

Pensions and other retirement funds are a huge chunk of the assets in the markets. If we're doing things to keep stocks from dropping maybe we should iron out massive income inequality a little bit so that more people can invest money for retirement to prop up the market.
 
2013-08-06 08:58:06 AM  

MattStafford: Workers should be able to organize, and employers should be able to fire those workers if they deem it necessary.

We're headed to a post jobs society - let's act like it folks.  Institute a GMI and stop worrying about wages etc.


What's a GMI?
 
2013-08-06 08:58:10 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


Actually, the wealthy DO spend money, just not at the levels they would need to to keep an economy afloat.  How often do you see a billionaire buy 300 cars?  200 yachts?  10,000 shirts, ties and slacks?  That is the level of spending by the wealthy that would be needed to keep economies afloat.  But even then, most of the actual 'spending' that wealthy do is playing the market and living off the interest of their investments.  So, nothing that would help the Smiths down the street, but plenty to keep them on top of the wealth heap.
 
2013-08-06 09:01:09 AM  
www.metroactive.com
"Oh, come on! When did cooking the books a little ever hurt anybody?"
 
2013-08-06 09:01:35 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: What is this I don't even

You don't think taxing the wealthy (who have large investments in bonds and stocks) would cause the price of those assets to drop?  And that retirement funds are heavily invested in stocks and bonds?


Can you put that in terms of coconuts?
 
2013-08-06 09:01:47 AM  
The response of the big unions (AFSCME, SEIU, AFL-CIO affiliates) has been, and I am not making this up, "We can win with the tools we have". That and to vote for Democrats, as if the 2011-12 elections didn't show that to be a failed strategy.
 
2013-08-06 09:03:12 AM  

BMFPitt: Felgraf: Didn't Wisconsin fall REALLY FAR in job creation?

Care to present a thesis for how a law that only effects public employee unions can cause an overall lack of job creation?


I would if you weren't being deliberately obstinate.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-08-06 09:03:23 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.

Actually, the wealthy DO spend money, just not at the levels they would need to to keep an economy afloat.  How often do you see a billionaire buy 300 cars?  200 yachts?  10,000 shirts, ties and slacks?  That is the level of spending by the wealthy that would be needed to keep economies afloat.  But even then, most of the actual 'spending' that wealthy do is playing the market and living off the interest of their investments.  So, nothing that would help the Smiths down the street, but plenty to keep them on top of the wealth heap.


The biggest problem in the U.S. is that the vast majority of people are living in a world of myths.  There isn't good evidence that codling the rich helps the economy but people believe it because of appeals to ignorance or appeals to authority.  The U.S. used to take pride in the facts that individuals think for themselves but that's not happening right now.  Right now it's a faith based economy.
 
2013-08-06 09:03:29 AM  
The mod who greenlit this should be beaten with large quotation marks.

I mean it's one thing to greenlight the trollrific headlines this site defaults to now adays.  It's another to actually greenlight a headline with a "quote" that does not appear in the article.

Not only is the quote not there, the article doesn't even use the words "money," "saving," or "taxpayer."  The headline literally has nothing in common with the content of the article other than it's about unions in Wisconsin.
 
2013-08-06 09:03:30 AM  

MattStafford: This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.


How many of those stock purchases are actual company offerings as opposed to stock trades? The stock market is little different that the market for pogs especially when you consider that many companies are engaging in stock buybacks rather than paying dividends. Bonds are more clearly an investment but the return rate on bonds is pretty low so it's usually just a means of preserving value in the face of inflation.

MattStafford: If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.


Unless you sell your principle, you're not going to be making much on your retirement account because any dividends that might be paid on the assets will be eaten up by management fees. What props up the value of the retirement account is the constant trading of these pogs back and forth. Anyone who has followed the stock market for any length of time realizes that stock price is only loosely connected to the value of the company assets and its earnings.

MattStafford: Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


A tax and compensation structure which makes it easy to earn a middle class income but increasingly difficult to accumulate wealth as one's wealth increases results in a stable circulation of assets through the economy. What we have at the moment a situation where the more wealthy you are the easier it becomes to accumulate more rather than more challenging. No economy where this trend is left unrestrained can be stable in the long term as all assets will eventually be accrued by an increasingly small fraction of people.
 
2013-08-06 09:03:49 AM  

NYCNative: And this compares how Wisconsin has been doing relative to other states:

[liberalbias.com image 850x496]


It would seem that a retarded chimpanzee could have done better. If Wisconsin voters only had a chance recently to remove him from office....
 
2013-08-06 09:04:16 AM  

Blathering Idjut: MattStafford: This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever

Buying stocks and bonds isn't "spending."  It's investing.  If you take a look at the record stock market levels we've recently reached it doesn't take a lot to realize the stock market is almost entirely divorced from the poorly performing economy as a whole

If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Or the wealthy find a way to hoover those retirement funds out of your account just like they did the economy at large.

Personally I invested in guillotines.  I expect a big return in the near future.


We really need to invent a name for all the Farkers who are expecting and fantasizing about the next "French Revolution" like a pants-wetting gun nut dreams about a hoodie-wearing late night intruder. Guillotine Preppers maybe?

// Occupy Elba!
 
2013-08-06 09:06:30 AM  

MattStafford: ltr77: Low and moderate income workers drive the economy, so anything that puts more money into their hands will create more jobs.  People with money buy more goods and use more services.  By effectively limiting one of the last vestiges protecting the middle class (the public unions) and demanding just compensation you begin to kill off the economy.  What happens next is a large power transfer accompanied with an increasing wealth transfer to the hands of a few hoarders of wealth.  Money ceases to circulate freely and job creation stagnates since there is less demand for goods and services.

This is such bullshiat.  The wealthy spend their money just as much as the poor spend their money, they just put it in stocks or bonds or whatever.  If you have a retirement account - the value of that account is massively propped up by the wealthy's money.  You take the money away from those "hoarders" and watch your retirement funds collapse.

Sorry buddy - there isn't a magic "just raise taxes" solution that fixes the problem.


Those "Stocks or Bonds or Whatever" are not circulating in the marketplace for goods or services though which is his point. Non circulating funds is not just a problem for wealthy, in Japan for instance a culture of saving by the middle and working classes has been blamed for slow growth.

"Just raise taxes" is an oversimplification as well, trade agreements and the shadow undocumented workforce have been driving down wages for thirty years and decreasing the funds circulating in a consumer economy. This was propped up by access to easy credit before that blew up in our faces, if we are going to have real growth we need more money to change hands. If we would have bailed-out homeowners along with the banks during our last free-market misadventure that would have happened, but the Social Darwinist are so terrified of a effective government program that helps anyone but themselves that it was killed from the original bailout package.

The funny thing is that companies are sitting on record profits and amounts of cash, they are not investing them as the supply-side model says they would to increase demand, they are waiting exactly as the Keynesian models predicted for demand first then they will invest.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report